Does a translator of the Old or New Testament need ... spiritual discernment ?
It is interesting how people will try to say something bad about Riplinger, INSTEAD OF talking about the a) the Evidence and b) the points that she makes in the video as well as in her book [new age versions -1993 ]. If you want to critique her work, you should start by reading her book, because that is where the research is. The videos only support the book. But it is not a substitute for it.
If Riplinger had no college at all (even though she has taught as a College professor), she would still be better qualified than most Textual Critics today, who hold their own college positions because of their devotion to political correctness, and their willingness to constantly attack the Old and New Testaments. As Riplinger stands among those who is defending the Word of God, she at least is making the effort, and has put forth much good research with extensive documentation.
What exactly is it that you have been doing with your Christian Walk, besides trying to attack someone whose work brings up good questions and raises solid academic points for intellectual consideration ?
Should we censor Gail ? Quick, she might make someone think...lets censor her ? she may say something inconvenient, lets try to condemn her, lets try and pin labels on her... Is that the honest way to conduct intellectual inquiry ?
Is it Riplinger’s fault that Westcott and Hort were occultists ?
Is it Riplinger’s fault that The Society for Psychical Research, has given credit to Westcott, for working for them as Secretary of the organization for many many years ?
Is it Riplinger’s fault that Westcott’s group, the Ghostly Guild was studying demonic possession, automated writing, aparatitions, clarevoyance, and that those are occult practices that Christians are commanded to stay away from ?
Is it Riplinger’s fault that Westcott owned up to being the founder of the Ghostly Guild with Hort, and that Westcott wrote about this in his letters, which have been published, thereby confirming what Gail Riplinger has said ?
Is it Riplinger’s fault that the Ghostly Guild only later on became known under its new name, the Society for Psychical Research ?
Is it Riplinger’s fault that FJA Hort says in his works (Life and Letters) that the standard historic ancient Greek New Testament is VILE ? Westcott and Hort were part of others movements also. They just hoped that others would not know this
. ; . At the time, the Anglican church had much trouble from occulist infiltration, as well as from those who wanted the Anglican Church to join with Rome. Westcott and Hort favored both movements. Today, those movements continue, and secularism has become another basis that can be used, often against historic truth. The Textus Receptus is even available [[ here ]]
. ; , already. And Burgon and others had already traveled to examine Vaticanus in person
. ;, and they found it defective. Others who have done those studies have reached the same conclusions.
Is it Riplinger’s fault that most Bible publishers today are secularists, who don’t care about the content, and many of the modern versions and their staffs admit or display that the professors who translated for them, actually don’t believe in the very book (the Bible) that they are translating ?
[One example is the Revised Standard Version ( RSV ) of 1946-52 where not one of its 9 translators actually claimed to believe in Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, nor the virgin birth, nor the inspiration of the text. ] Is it Gail Riplinger ‘s fault that the New Testament teaches that it takes someone who is spiritually regenerated to have the needed spiritual insight to understand the contents of the N.T ? IF that is true, then what does that mean if many of the modern versions are translated by those who do not believe ?
It happens that most, we can actually say MOST of the friends of Westcott and Hort themselves wrote books, many books, and in their books, they speak of a) their devotion to the occult and b) their friendships with Westcott and Hort ? Is that something we should blame Gail Riplinger for, that these people all decided to talk, and that they CONFIRM what Gail has pointed out ?
One of Gail’s critics here makes the point concerning the NIV that it did not omit the word “fasting” in ALL of the places where the word is traditionally mentioned, therefore HOW does that account for the choice to OMIT fasting, when it should NOT have been edited out, even once ? The only way for someone to believe that this is alright, is to agree with Vaticanus and disagree with the 99% of manuscripts that do NOT support it [see the work of Hoskier, available also, where he exposes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, line by line].
Riplinger work on New Age version remains valid and accurate, even though it was written back in 1993. It is interesting that instead of attacking the material (which Exposes Westcott and Hort and their reliance on Greek false copies), it is Gail who is reviled. The NIV, NASB, TEV, CEV and most modern versions are Westcott and Hort texts. They reflect the omissions and changes made by Westcott and Hort. But you will not notice that unless and until you have made a habit of reading more accurate versions, such as the [ Geneva ]
or the Original KJV (look for the links). (sadly, the minsnamed NKJV follows vaticanus through the work of Von Soden).
If you are not familiar with truth, you are not likely to spot the errors, and it is worth noting that the great falling away is not taking place by people who are using accurate versions. The people who have great spiritual instability and don’t know what they believe have one feature in common, overwhelmingly, which is that they use modern versions.
It is really hard, oh so difficult, so greatly impossible, to actually get a dictionary (such as [ Vol 1 ]
. ;Webster’s 1828 [ Vol 2 ]
. ;dictionary, which is Free), and learn how to actually a) look up words and b) write them down. Learning a language properly actually DOES take time, and if you relationship with God is not worth it, and you do not value that, then you will not value the words of God.
The evidence for much of what Gail wrote happens to be in English. Westcott and Hort wrote their books and their letters in English. The false teachers about the versions write much of what they do, in English. Those who know ONLY English are HARDLY without evidence, concerning the points that Riplinger raises... even though the works are written in English.
English....what a “ Narrow “ choice of languages, just because 99% of the world already speaks it. Bad Gail ! she should obviously have made a different choice of languages. Her issues about Hebrew are just as valid, even though she is speaking in English.
When Gail talks about Kittel and exposes that Kittel himself is the one who said that he did not believe in the accuracy of the Old Testament, even the very Old Testament that he translated, that happens to be RELEVANT.
It tells me that someone is trying to get me to use their New Testament in Hebrew, which Kittel translated, even though, the translator Kittel says that he does not believe that it is possible to know what the true Old Testament looked like. Obviously Kittel did not believe in divine inspiration, nor in divine preservation.
And when Jesus quotes the Old Testament (which he does) and mentions the different categories of the Prophets, and the Law, and also credits MOSES as being the author, according to Kittel Jesus was lying, or deluded. So Kittel who translated the Old Testament used in almost ALL the modern versions, does NOT believe in the words of Jesus Christ.
That probably is something that Gail should have kept to herself, is it ? And never mind telling people the truth about their Old Testament, even though they have GOOD Old Testament which is accurately translated, such as the King James Version ???
Kittel was - in his case - a secularist who believed (contrary to what the Bible teaches) that Elohim and Jehovah/Yawyh/YHVH were Two (2) DIFFERENT gods. That is what the guy who translated your Old Testament in the Modern Versions believed. Are you comfortable with his spiritual understanding or discernment ? Can you find a Modern translation that is NOT using the false translation of Kittel for the Old Testament ? That view of Kittel about God is totally against what the Old Testament teaches, AND Kittel is maintaining his false views about Yaweh, in direct contradiction to Jesus’ statement that attribute those very books of the Old Testament to MOSES.
So it is Kittel that knew better and Jesus Christ is the Liar ? Great ! that is really Good, really edifying, really encouraging, really Biblical, really Sound Doctrine, and I should question Gail Ripinger because SHE is the one who happens to point that out about Kittel.
Never mind that any ONE, anyone of the many Textual Critics who are Professors at colleges could EARLIER have written that same point, and could have pointed that out, and could have [ warned ]
. ; the Church and the LAYMEN. But THOSE critics chose not to. Well that certainly demonstrates beyond a doubt that Gail’s book and her videos here MUST be wrong (???).
Now the additional secret is this: Kittel wrote in GERMAN, so let’s blame Gail for not knowing German. Oh Wait, the works of
Kittel have been translated into ENGLISH, and you can get Kittels books on the History of the Hebrews [which are unreliable ] in ENGLISH !!!. So you can read what Kittel says in English for yourself.
You can read Westcott talking about his occult drenched Ghostly Guild in English.
You can read Hort talking about how the Greek New Testament is Vile....in English.
You can read Kittel saying that God is not God and we don’t know what the Bible is, in ENGLISH !
You can Find the work of Ginsburg (C.D. Ginsburg) and his Two Volume work called intro to masoretico critical edition. [ Yes, it IS available online and Free ...here also] It is the most serious scholarly work about which manuscripts of the Old Testament are reliable and which ones are not. What is clear is that Kittel and his work are not Biblical nor accurate, and that their manuscript (leningrad codex) is lacking. That also is true, regardless of your opinion of Ripilnger. Yes, many things are true, even IF Riplinger believers them. So just because she is subject to criticism for bringing truth forward, that does not make her wrong. Concerning the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Ginsburg is among the top Hebrew Scholars in the world.
In case of potential Interest, for you to make up your own mind:
Here are a few more books & info about versions:
[[[ Issues in N.T. O.T. Canonization - Historic ]]]
. ; [[[ N.T. - Latin ]]]
. ; [[[ Basis for Inspiration - Haldane - Vol 1 ]]]
. ; [[[ Haldane - Vol 02 ]]]
. ; [[[ Problems with Bib. Soc. ]]]
. ; [[[ Accuracy of Scripture ]]]
. ; [[[ Pentateuch - Historic accuracy of ]]]
. ;[[[ End times & Paganism ]]]
. ; [[[ KJV Credentials ]]]
. ; [[[ Significance of changes between Old and New Versions - De Semlyen ]]]
. [[[ Geneva Bible ]]]
. ; [[[ Best O.T. Manuscripts- Vol 1 ]]]
. ; [[[ What is Best OT - Vol 02 ]]]
. ; [[[ History of the Received Text (TR) ]]]
. ; [[[ Manuscript Corruptions & Answers ]]]
. [[[ Study of Codex B - (Vaticn/Sinait.) ]]]
. ; [[[ Philosophy of Man ]]]
. ; [[[ What Started This All (some) ]]]
. ; [[[ The Step by Step raising of questions ]]]
. ; [[[ De Semlyen ]]]
. [[[ Manuscripts used by Westcott ]]]
. ; [[[ Apostasis defined ]]]
. ; [[[ the Classic Reply to W & Hort ]]]
. ; [[[ Reina Valera - Actual ]]]
. ; [[[ Juan Valdes - Spn ]]]